I need an overview or detail review of critical theory. I am interested in the use of critical theory for the explanation of management of change.
I would first be clear about what you mean by the term critical theory. For example, in my own work I apply the term critical theory as set out by Buchanan (2018) “Critical Theory.” in which the critical theorist practices against the traditional conception of theory “which holds that it is a system of abstract (i.e. ahistorical, asubjective, and asocial) propositions which can be verified empirically”.
Your question might then be in what sense might your own use of 'critical' theory for the explanation of the management of change acknowledge its subjectivity and its historic potential as a foundation for re-engaging with the concept of management change?
Buchanan, Ian. “Critical Theory.” In Oxford Dictionary of Critical Theory, 2nd (onlin. Oxford University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198794790.001.0001.
There are as many 'critical theory' definitions as there are kinds of bread. The term was coined by the Frankfurt School - Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin etc in 1930s Germany who developed a Marx-influenced but non-Marxist cultural/political critique including literary and musical critique (Adorno). Some members of this school took refuge in the USA during and after the Second WW (e.g. Adorno, Fromm). A distinctive feature of this work is an insistence on the broader meaning of criticism or critical as both positive and negative (as in say musical or theatrical criticism) but as locating the activities and social structures concerned in their cultural-historical and political @@settings.
Much later, in 1970s USA it was applied to various neo-Marxist and related positions perhaps because Marxism/Socialism was in disrepute after the 1960s movements had failed. From the 1970s on in Germany, Jurgen Habermas developed his own version of it as a kind of non-Marxist pragmatist influenced successor to 'cultural Marxism' .
The term once had specific reference and is now used to indicate almost any anti-capitalist position at all. In the English speaking world, the positions of mainly mono-lingual writers it refers to have lost most of the complexity, subtlety and connection to Hegelianism and continental philosophy in general that the term once had. Specific sub-branches of this attenuated theoretical heritage have developed in many academic areas from Geography to Social Work. If you are not referring to theorists in the continental tradition you could say the term applies to almost any position that places the phenomena under study in their historical/cultural /political background with a specific emphasis on negative views about current neo-liberal societies. The key insight is the view that theory is produced by humans immersed in their own culture and time and theories have a history and a political positioning, they are not 'value-free' or neutral. Habermas' notion of the current 'historical learning level' of societies as well as schools of thought, and of course, individuals (biographically) is crucial if you are to understand the origins and positioning of humanity's theoretical products.
Perhaps the best available discussion of the continental work in general and the legacy of the Frankfurt School can be found in the work of Frederik van Gelder. As to the English language work, good luck.
I would add that at a general level ( David Atkinson ) David Atkinson's reply is correct but the specifics of the focus of theorists on aspects of their present social and cultural situation seen through a disciplinary lens differentiates the many versions of critical theory.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts